Office Bearers

GS 1965 ARTICLE 195: Appeal K. Esselink.

Advisory committee IV again presents its proposals regarding the response to the appeal of Br. K. Esselink of Winnipeg, MB, in a slightly modified form. The following judgment is made:

  • “The General Synod
  • has taken note of the appeal dated October 31, 1965 written by Br. K. Esselink of Winnipeg, MB.

His objections are:[1]

  • 1a.  The suspension of Rev. de Haan “pursuant to CO article 53” when “Rev. de Haan had complied with CO article 53, when he was ordained as minister of Winnipeg, among others.”
  • 1b. “Whether Rev. de Haan should have the right to refuse has not been investigated by any assembly, neither church council, nor classis, nor regional synod.”
  • 1c. “Being a minister in our churches depends on his signature under the Dort Form, and only there.”
  • 1d. “Rev. Van Popta and Rev. Mulder advised to ask Rev. de Haan to sign before the church council and then the church council can pass this on to the classis” is “acting pragmatically”[2].
  • 2.    The fact that Rev. van Popta abstained when some delegates at Classis submitted the proposal “to reject CO article 53 as a ground for suspension, because Rev. de Haan had complied with it, namely in 1958 among others,” proves “that the church order was used as a crooked stick to get rid of Rev. de Haan.”
  • 3.    The ratification of the decision of Classis by the church council was necessary for the unjustified suspension of Rev. de Haan.
  • 4.    Suspension on the grounds of a refusal to subscribe by a minister who has served the churches for seven years is “utterly false, even unreformed, and contrary to God’s Word, confession and Church Order (BC article 29) “.
  • 5.    “With the liberation of 1944/45, it was properly Reformed not to hold decisions to be settled and binding, if they were not in accordance with God’s Word or the Three Forms of Unity.” “If you do that now, you’re suddenly unreformed and erring.”
  • 6a. In the suspension of Rev. de Haan, “thoughts expressed during the church council meeting” about the preaching of Rev. de Haan played a role.
  • 6b. “That in this matter the keys of the kingdom of heaven have been used with regards to Rev. de Haan and various members of the congregation. Are those people now outside the Kingdom of Heaven?”

The Synod observes:

The matters referred to in paragraphs 1, 5 and 6b were not presented by the appellant as an appeal to[3] the decisions of Regional Synod 1965, while the matters referred to in paragraphs 2 and 6a were submitted by him to Regional Synod 1965 in his appeal, but were not dealt with directly by it.

The Synod considers:

  • ad 1a. Br Esselink may state that Rev. de Haan has complied with CO article 53 when he was ordained as pastor of Winnipeg, among others, and was therefore unlawfully suspended “pursuant to C.O. article 53”, but does not take into account that in CO article 53 the Classis, in addition to the church council, is mentioned as a body which has the power to suspend from ministry a minister who refuses to sign the Three Forms of Unity, which clearly shows that the signing of the Three Forms is not only a matter for the church council, but also a matter for the Classis.
  • ad 1b. Br Esselink may state that no assembly has made an inquiry into the right of Rev. de Haan to refuse to sign, but does not take into account that such an inquiry is not necessary, as there is an obligation to sign as per CO article 53.
  • ad 1c. Br Esselink incorrectly states that being a minister in our churches depends on the signature of Dort’s form, and only it, since being a minister in our churches depends on being bound to the Three Forms of Unity, as proof of which classis, as per C.O. article 53, asks of ministers the promises found in the Dort Form of Subscription.
  • ad 2. Br Esselink incorrectly states that Rev. Van Popta’s abstention proves that the order of the church, and in particular C.O. article 53 has been used as a crooked stick to get rid of ds de Haan, as this abstention as such in no manner provides evidence for his statement
  • ad. 3. Br Esselink may state that the ratification of the Classis decision by the church council was necessary for the unlawful suspension of Rev. de Haan, but he fails to provide evidence for this statement from official documents.
  • ad 4. Br Esselink may state that suspension on the ground of a minister who has served the churches for seven years refusing to sign is totally false, unreformed, and contrary to God’s Word, confession and church order, but he does not take into account that Regional Synod 1965 considered “that the appellants wrongly emphasize that it was only after seven years of service in Winnipeg that Rev. de Haan was asked to sign the Dort Form for Subscription, since this is something which should have happened on the first classis after Rev. de Haan’s ordination in Winnipeg, which (through no fault of his own) did not happen.”
  • ad 6a. Br Esselink may state that in the suspension of Rev. de Haan thoughts expressed during the church council meeting about the preaching of Rev. de Haan played a role but it does not appear from the decision of suspension that those thoughts led to the suspension.

The Synod concludes:

  • On the ground of the foregoing, to dismiss the appeal of Br. Esselink.”

Br L. Toet abstains from voting as per CO article 33.

Press Release version ARTICLE 36: Letter K. Esselink.

Re: Letter of appeal br K. Esselink of Winnipeg, Man.

  • “The General Synod has taken cognizance of the letter of appeal, d.d. October 31, 1965, received from br K. Esselink of Winnipeg, Man.

His objections are:

  • 1a. the fact that Rev. De Haan was suspended “on the ground of Article 53 C.0. whereas “Rev. De Haan has complied with Article 53 C.O. when he was installed into his office as minister of Winnipeg, a.o.”;
  • 1b. “that Rev. De Haan would have the right to refuse has not been investigated by any assembly, neither by the consistory, nor by the classis, nor by the Particular Synod”;
  • 1c.  “to be a minister in our churches depends on his signature under the Form of Dort, and on this only”;
  • 1d. “Revs. Van Popta and Mulder advised to ask of Rev. De Haan that he should sign before the consistory and then the consistory could pass it on to Classis” and this is “compromise”;
  • 2.    the fact that Rev. Van Popta abstained from voting, when it was moved by some delegates at Classis “to reject Article 53 C.O. as ground for suspension, because Rev. De, Haan did comply with it, namely in 1958 a.o.” proves “that the Church Order has been used as a pretext to get rid of Rev. De Haan”;
  • 3.    the ratification of the classical decision by the consistory was needed for the purpose of the unlawful suspension of Rev. De Haan;
  • 4.    suspension of a minister, who has served the churches for seven years, on the ground of his refusal to sign is “altogether incorrect, even un- reformed and conflicting with God’s Word, the confession, and the Church Order (Article 29 B.C.) “;
  • 5.    “At the liberation in 1944/ 45 it was good reformed not to hold decisions for settled and binding, if they were not in accordance with God’s Word, or the Three Forms of Unity”. “When one does this now, then all of a sudden you are unreformed and erring”;
  • 6a. opinions “voiced in the consistory-meeting” about the preaching of Rev. De Haan played a prominent part in the suspension of Rev. De Haan;
  • 6b. “That here the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are used in respect to Rev. De Haan and several members of the congregation. Are these people now standing outside the Kingdom of Heaven?”

Synod states:

  • The matters mentioned under ld, 5, and 6b have not been sent in by appellant as an appeal against the decisions of the Particular Synod 1965, while the matters mentioned under 2 and 6a were indeed put before the Particular Synod 1965 in his letter of appeal, but were not directly dealt with by that Synod.

Synod considers:

  • ad la. Br Esselink puts that Rev. De Haan complied with Article 53 C.O. when he was installed as minister of Winnipeg a.o., and therefore was wrongly suspended “on the ground of Article 53 C.O.”, but does not bring into account that in Article 53 C.O. Classis is mentioned beside the Consistory as a body which has the authority to sus­ pend from office a minister who refuses to sign the Three Forms of Unity, which shows clearly that the signing of the Three Forms is also a matter of Classis;
  • ad lb. Br Esselink puts indeed that no assembly whatsoever has investigated the right of Rev. De Haan to refuse to sign, but he leaves out of account that such an investigation did not have to be made, since according to Article 53 C.O. there is an obligation to sign;
  • ad lc. Br Esselink puts wrongly that to be a minister in our churches depends on the signature under the Form of Dort, and on this only, since to be a minister in our churches depends on the faithfulness to the Three Forms of Unity, in proof whereof Classis, in accordance with Article 53 C.O., asks of the ministers the promises, contained in the Subscription Form of Dort;
  • ad 2. Br Esselink puts wrongly that Rev. Van Popta’s abstaining from voting proves that ‘the Church Order, particularly Article 53 C.O., was used as a pretext to get rid of Rev. De, Haan, since this abstention as such does not give any proof at all for this statement;
  • ad 3. Br Esselink puts indeed that ratification of the classical decision by the consistory was needed for the in his opinion unlawful suspension of Rev. De Haan, but he fails to adduce proof for this statement from the official records;
  • ad 4. Br Esselink puts indeed that suspension of a minister who has served the churches for seven years, on the ground of his refusal to sign, is altogether incorrect, unreformed, and contrary to God’s Word, the Confession, and the Church Order, but he leaves out of account that the Particular Synod 1965 considered “that appellants wrongly stressed that Rev. De Haan not until after having fulfilled seven years of service in Winnipeg, was asked to sign the Subscription Form of Dort, since this is something which should have been done at the first Classis after Rev. De Haan’s installation in Winnipeg, which was not done (through no fault of Rev. De Haan’s) ;”
  • ad 6a. Br Esselink puts indeed that opinions voiced in the consistory-meeting about the preaching of Rev. De Haan played a prominent part in the suspension of Rev. De Haan, but from the decision to suspend it does not appear that these opinions have led to the suspension.

Synod decides,

  • on the ground of the above mentioned considerations to dismiss the objections of br Esselink.”

[1] Translator: The structure of this portion of article 195 does not make complete sense in the original Dutch, which is reflected in the English translation. It would make more sense if the introductory phrase was “His objections concern”.

[2] Translator: the Dutch term here is “schipperen” which means “to make things in order by acting according to circumstances, not principles.”

[3] Translator: The Dutch here has “appél op” (“appeal to”) while it would make more sense if the Dutch had “appél tegen” (“appeal against”).